Consent (was Re: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article )

J C Lawrence <claw@kanga.nu> wrote:
> No, I consider requiring explicit published consent between the DNS
> masters and a sending node to be a bad thing.

  Wow.  So any sending node doesn't need to have consent of a DNS
master to claim to send messages from that domain.  By trivial
extension, sending nodes also don't need the consent of users at a
domain, to send messages claiming to be those users.

  Great.  I'll post messages claiming to be from you, to ASRG, saying
how much you like spam, liver, punk music, or anything else.  Since I
don't need your consent, you will, of course, have no objection.

> Almost.  Currently domains don't control the use of their names,

  I'm amazed.  I thought that the administrators of DNS for a domain
could control which IP's were pointed to by names in that domain.
They can prevent other IP's from being associated with a domain,
simply by NOT listing those IP's in DNS.

  If that's not controlling the use of a name, I don't know what is.

> > So the people controlling DNS for a domain are NOT, in fact,
> > authorized to make any statements about the domain.  
> 
> Sure they are, they just currently can't explicitly control the
> behaviour of edge nodes.  Under RMX they are granted a very large fat
> club to dictate and control the behaviour of edge nodes.  

  Nope.

  The edge nodes can still send email claiming to be from a domain.
They CANNOT, however, claim that they have the consent of the owner of
that domain to use his name.

> The problem is that RMX encodes those statements in a machine
> processable form that can and will be used mechanically for mail
> filtering.  Should RMX gain any traction it is safe to assume that
> in fairly short order mail from non-RMX-bearing nodes will be
> bounced/dropped, and thus RMX records will become a de facto
> requirement for sending mail.  That spells central control and
> authority over how mail is processed within a domain.  No thanks.

  So you're opposed to other people centralizing control over their
own domain.  Hmm...

  See, you don't have to add RMX records, or look them up.  That's
your choice.  But please understand that the people you send mail to
will impose conditions before they consent to accepting traffic from
you.

  The problem here is that you apparently don't want others to impose
conditions on traffic they accept from you.  In that case, your
position is *identical* to that of the spammers.

>  Even outside of the privacy concerns, I've no wish to build systems
> which not only define, but mandate dictators on an Internet-wide
> scale.

  Huh?  Since when did we jump from domain owners adminstering consent
and control for their domains, to Internet-wide dictators?

  Do you understand that artificially inflating the problem, and
engaging in fear-mongering are unhelpful?

> I don't give a rats for RMX records.  People can add them now.  I cal
> also create DNS entries saying bad things about your or Bill Gate's
> parentage.  Big whoop.  I care about what RMX records imply and how they
> will, necessarily, be used.

  ... by others.  Thanks, but no thanks.   Are you familiar with the
quote:

  "If I knew someone was coming to my house with the intention of
   doing me good, I would run for my life."

> Yes, they have repeatedly addressed it by saying that either the DNS
> master will have to be a nice guy and update his records appropriately
> (frequently for a domain he has no interested in for the mobile case),
> or that other technologies ala VPNs  will have to be used to ensure mail
> is smarthosted thru an RMX node.
> 
> I don't consider either an acceptable address.  You do.  We differ.

  I consider them acceptable for me, and the domains I administer.
It's your concern if you don't consider them acceptable for you, and
your domains.

  What I find astonishing about your beliefs is that you don't find
that behaviour acceptable for *me*, either.  What the heck happened to
my freedom to choose?  Or would you propose that you should be
appointed an "Internet-wide dicatator", because your attitude is
benevolent, and you're doing it "for our own good" ?

  Be careful.  Down that path lies a host of nightmares.

  Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg